SCIJUS-00578; No of Pages 6

Science and Justice xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science and Justice

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scijus

An investigation into effective methodologies for latent fingerprint

enhancement on items recovered from fire
Sarah Jane Gardner a,⁎, Thomas H. Cordingley a, Sean C. Francis b
a
Bond University, Health Sciences and Medicine, Robina, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
b
Queensland Police, Queensland, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A common assumption is that fire destroys fingerprint evidence. Recent studies have sought to challenge this as-
Received 11 May 2015 sumption. This study presents a comparative evaluation of soot removal and fingerprint enhancement tech-
Received in revised form 9 February 2016 niques, following fire(s) to ascertain optimal process efficacy for recovering fingerprints. Two car burns and a
Accepted 11 February 2016
cremation oven were used to determine the temperature range. Temperatures of 300, 450 and 600 °C were
Available online xxxx
used in simulated, controlled fires wherein cars had prints deposited on rear view mirrors. Burning occurred in
a shipping container designed to approximate the variables relating to car arson. Soot removal was undertaken
by tape lifting, sodium hydroxide solution, or liquid latex casting. The fingerprint enhancement techniques com-
prised black magnetic, aluminium and black suspension powders, or cyanoacrylate fuming with BY40 dye. A fin-
gerprint expert classified prints as un/identifiable according to standards to be submitted as evidence in court.
Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed on the data using a p value of b 0.05 to determine sta-
tistical significance. Temperature was the biggest factor affecting fingerprint recovery. There were no statistically
significant differences found between any of the soot removal methods used. Higher counts of identifiable prints
were recovered with black magnetic powder and cyanoacrylate/BY40 compared to the other methods used but
these findings were not statistically significant. It is recommended that recovery of fire-exposed fingerprints
(which are not protected) is undertaken where suspected maximum temperatures are b450 °C. Evaluation of op-
timal soot removal and fingerprint enhancement techniques should be conducted on a case by case basis.
© 2016 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. on behalf of The Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences.

1. Introduction
Arson, or the international use of fire to damage property, is a signif-
icant issue worldwide [1]. Natural fires, particularly Bushland fires in
Australia are a regular occurrence, especially in the summer months,
where temperatures can reach 50 °C (World Meteorological Organiza-
tion (Accessed [12]).
Currently in Queensland, Scenes of Crime Officers do not collect
items for prints if they have been involved in a fire largely due to the
‘limited success of developing identifiable prints on surfaces subjected
to fire’ [8].
Previous studies have shown that fire/heat exposed fingerprints can
be recovered [2–7]. Similar studies have not yet taken place in Australia.
This study aimed to look at the effectiveness of current soot removal
and fingerprint enhancement techniques following the exposure of
prints to fire at various temperatures and to put previous work into op-
erational context in Australia.
A complication that is often encountered following a fire is the pres-
ence of a layer of soot, partially or completely covering the print. A range
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sgardner@bond.edu.au (S.J. Gardner).
of soot removal techniques have been investigated by Bleay et al. [2] and
Stow and McGurry [11]. The use of light brushing, tape lifting, silicon
rubber casting, sodium hydroxide solution, an eraser and Absorene
were all tested on porous and non-porous soot covered surfaces with
some success.
Fingerprint components such as amino acids, lactic acid and fats pos-
sess a limited tolerance to exposure to extreme conditions [9]. In con-
trast, salts are capable of withstanding increased heat [10].
Dominick et al. [7] noted that temperature and time of exposure had
a significant effect on fingerprints on glass and ceramic objects which
exposed to direct heat and air flow did not survive temperatures of
350 °C and over.
Bleay et al. [2] stated that marks are much more likely to survive if
the exhibit has not been exposed to temperatures N300 °C and if they
have been protected in some way from the direct effect of heat and
smoke. They also found that the effectiveness of powder and powder
suspension methods decreased significantly when the print was ex-
posed to temperatures in excess of 200 °C whilst cyanoacrylate fuming
was effective until the temperature climbed N 500 °C.
Deans [5] found that ridge detail was visible on prints exposed to
temperatures of around 500 °C with cyanoacrylate fuming but that
this was a ‘noteworthy exception’.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2016.02.003
1355-0306/© 2016 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. on behalf of The Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences.

Please cite this article as: S.J. Gardner, et al., An investigation into effective methodologies for latent fingerprint enhancement on items recovered
from fire, Sci. Justice (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2016.02.003
2 S.J. Gardner et al. / Science and Justice xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
2. Materials and method
2.1. Preliminary car burns
The car burns were carried out at the Fire Academy, Port of Brisbane
in four-door Sedan vehicles, each fitted with thermocouple probes
drilled into the driver's side, positioned 150 mm and 700 mm from
the roof. The fire was lit on the driver's seat, without the use of an accel-
erant. Once the fire began to spread from the passenger compartment, it
was extinguished with water. The first car burn was carried out to re-
cord the progressive temperature as the fire proceeded. The second, in
the same manner, but with 36 introduced rear view mirrors (without
prints) suspended at ceiling height on a wire frame. The condition of
each mirror following the burn was then examined.
2.2. Fingerprint deposition
Car rear view mirrors were purchased from local wrecker's yards.
The number chosen enabled triplicate repeats and control experiments
to be carried out.
The mirrors were cleaned with warm soapy water then washed in
70% ethanol and left to air dry, a day before print deposition.
Four donors (two male, two female) washed their hands with soap
and water 30 min prior to deposition and rubbed their hands together
between deposits to distribute constituents. They each deposited one
single print with their right index finger to three different mirror sides
of the rear view mirrors (to enable triplicate repeats). This was repeated
until each of 160 mirrors held a single print from all four donors. This
took place the day before the experiment to be conducted.
2.3. Cremation oven experiments
These experiments were carried out at Newhaven Funerals in
Stapylton.
Car rear view mirrors with deposited prints were placed inside a
pre-heated cremation oven (model IE43-PPII Plus) to temperatures
300, 450 or 600 °C for a duration of 15 min. These experiments
allowed for the investigation of extreme heat on prints whilst negat-
ing the effect of soot and smoke. The fingerprints were enhanced
with four different techniques and were evaluated for identifiability
by a fingerprint expert.
2.4. Simulated fire experiments
These experiments were carried out at the Fire Academy, Port of
Brisbane in a shipping container designed to represent the space of a ve-
hicle interior without internal furnishings.
The mirrors were placed on a metal tray on the ground at the end
of the container, situated to ensure even exposure. A thermocouple
probe was placed at ground level to measure the progressive tem-
perature. The fire was lit with kerosene accelerant and fuelled with
wood shavings. Temperatures were allowed to progress until they
reached 300, 450 or 600 °C which was between 5 and 15 min de-
pending on the temperature required. Once reached the tray was re-
moved and the fire extinguished.
2.5. Control experiments
Car rear view mirrors with deposited prints were stored under labo-
ratory conditions at room temperature (24 °C).
2.6. Soot removal and fingerprint enhancement methodology
Sodium hydroxide solution, liquid latex casting (Mikrosil™) and tape
lifting were chosen as the soot removal techniques (applied according to
the manufacturer's instruction and as described by Bleay et al. [2].
Please cite this article as: S.J. Gardner, et al., An investigation into effective methodologies for latent fingerprint enhancement on items recovered
from fire, Sci. Justice (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2016.02.003
The sooty mirror was immersed in a 1% w/v 5-sulphosalicylic acid
fixing agent for 30 s followed by immersion in a 0.5% w/v sodium hy-
droxide solution for 15 s.
Mikrosil™ casting agent was coated over the mirror surface for
15 min (or until fully dry) and then peeled away.
Scotch 3M pressure sensitive tape was applied to the sooty surface
with a roller and then peeled away.
Black magnetic powder, aluminium powder, black powder suspension
(magnetic iron oxide based) and cyanoacrylate fuming (using 3 g of cya-
noacrylate in a Cyanosafe CAS-30 chamber at 85% relative humidity for
18 min) with BY40 dye (as an ethanol based immersion solution followed
by a water wash) were chosen as the print enhancement methods.
These techniques were applied in accordance with processes de-
scribed in the Home Office Fingerprints Source Book, UK [3].
2.7. Fingerprint assessment
The quality of the recovered prints was independently assessed by a
fingerprint expert at Queensland Police. The fingerprints were catego-
rized as either identifiable (and given the notation 1) or not identifiable
(and given the notation zero). An identifiable print was one that met the
Queensland Police internal standard to be submitted as evidence in
court. (Note that ridge detail present that was insufficient to meet the
criteria for identifiability was recorded as zero).
3. Results
3.1. Control experiments
All of the fingerprints from the positive control group were deemed
identifiable (100% recovery) following application of the four finger-
print enhancement techniques.
3.2. Car burns
For both car burns, the temperature initially increased before reaching
a peak at approximately 200 °C. At this point the temperatures decreased
over 150 s before rapidly rising to nearly 600 °C (see Figs. 1 and 2).
The mirrors which were exposed to the second car burn (exceeding
temperatures of 500 °C) were recovered in various states. Table 1 shows
that 42% were recovered entirely or nearly intact. Contamination of the
mirrors from the vehicle interior such as melted plastics and roof lining
meant that the mirror surface, in a number of cases, was only partially
exposed. In addition, warping of the wire frame used to suspend the
mirrors meant that some were damaged when they fell to the vehicle
floor. Given these difficulties these results were not statistically evaluat-
ed. However, temperatures of 300, 450 and 600 °C were chosen for sub-
sequent experiments, covering a range which the mirrors could still be
largely recoverable.
3.3. Cremation oven experiments
Following exposure of the prints to 300, 450 and 600 °C in the cre-
mation oven and subsequent fingerprint enhancement with the four
techniques, it was found that there were statistically significant differ-
ences (* = p b 0.05) between the three temperatures, in the number
of prints categorized as identifiable (see Fig. 3).
The black magnetic powder and cyanoacrylate fuming methods re-
covered 30 and 29% identifiable prints respectively across the three
temperatures, aluminium powder and black powder suspension recov-
ering 19 and 16% respectively. No statistically significant differences
were found with these results.
 S.J. Gardner et al. / Science and Justice xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 3

Fig. 1. Progressive temperature of Car Burn 1.

Fig. 2. Progressive temperature of Car Burn 2.

3.4. Simulated fire experiments

Table 1
Temperature was again found to be a large factor influencing the
State of the mirrors following the second car burn.
percentage of identifiable prints following the simulated fires, with sta-
State of recovery Mirror count tistically significant differences found between 300 and 450 °C (* =
Intact or largely intact 15 p b 0.05) temperatures as well as 300 and 600 °C (cross = p b 0.05)
Partially damaged or contaminated by materials from vehicle interior 8 (see Fig. 4).
Present only as fragments or not present at all 13 There were no statistically significant differences found between the
Total 36
effectiveness of the three soot removal methods used (see Fig. 5).

Please cite this article as: S.J. Gardner, et al., An investigation into effective methodologies for latent fingerprint enhancement on items recovered
from fire, Sci. Justice (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2016.02.003
4 S.J. Gardner et al. / Science and Justice xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Fig. 3. Percentage of identifiable fingerprints from the cremation oven experiments sorted by temperature and enhancement technique (* = p b 0.05).

For the print enhancement techniques, a similar pattern was
seen compared to the cremation oven experiments in that cyanoac-
rylate/BY40 recovered 30% of the prints, black magnetic powder
29%, aluminium powder 26% and black powder suspension, 19%.
These again however were not found to be statistically different
(see Fig. 6).
4. Discussion
Temperature was found to be the biggest factor affecting print re-
covery. At 600 °C, none of the fingerprints were identifiable from either
experiment suggesting that at this temperature all of the constituents
targeted by these four enhancement methods are destroyed.
At 450 °C, 54% of prints from the cremation oven experiments were
identifiable compared to only 6% from the simulated fires.
At 300 °C, most prints in both experiments were recoverable (89%
cremation oven; 77% simulated fires). These findings are supported by
the literature.
Dominick et al. [7] found that prints on glass/ceramics did not survive
beyond 350 °C with direct exposure; Deans [5] found ridge detail using
superglue on a baseball bat exposed to 500 °C but they describe this find-
ing as a ‘noteworthy exception’. Bleay et al. [2] found that marks are
more likely to survive if temperatures do not go N 300 °C and also that
survival rates for marks are considerably increased if the surface has
been protected in some way from the direct effects of the fire.
This could explain the differences found here particularly at 450 °C,
as the prints in the simulated fires were fully exposed to heat and
smoke rather than just heat.
In relation to the enhancement methods used, black magnetic pow-
der and cyanoacrylate fuming/BY40 showed higher overall fingerprint
recovery (29–30% for both cremation oven and simulated fires)

Fig. 4. Percentage of identifiable fingerprints from the simulated fires, sorted by temperature and enhancement technique (*/cross = p b 0.05).

Please cite this article as: S.J. Gardner, et al., An investigation into effective methodologies for latent fingerprint enhancement on items recovered
from fire, Sci. Justice (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2016.02.003
 S.J. Gardner et al. / Science and Justice xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 5

Fig. 5. Percentage of identifiable fingerprints from the simulated fire experiments, sorted by soot removal method.

compared to aluminium powder (19% cremation oven; 26% simulated
fires) and black powder suspension (16% cremation oven; 19% simulated
fires). These differences however, were not found to be statistically dif-
ferent compared to the other two methods.
Bleay et al. [2] state that powder and powder suspension methods
decrease in effectiveness when temperatures exceed 200 °C (probably
due to the decomposition of the target compounds at increased temper-
atures) and the temperature limit for successful cyanoacrylate fuming is
approximately 500 °C. For cyanoacrylate this could be explained by the
target salts' capability to withstand increased heat [10].
This study supports previous work in this area, particularly with
regards to temperature and success of print recovery.
5. Summary
As supported by current literature, temperature was found to be
the biggest factor determining print recovery and showed that in
fires, where soot is present, print recovery is unlikely at tempera-
ture of 450 °C. At 300 °C, print recovery is a possibility.
No statistically significant differences were found with the soot re-
moval and fingerprint enhancement techniques used in this study and
thus should be chosen on a case by case basis (note that sodium hydrox-
ide solution can be detrimental to DNA and if during fire fighting, the
nonporous surface becomes wet, cyanoacrylate fuming may be ren-
dered ineffective [2].
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Fire Academy at the Port of
Brisbane, Newhaven Funerals, Stapylton and Queensland Police Fo-
rensics for their expertise, use of premises and time.
They would also like to thank Dr. Steven Bleay of CAST, Home Office,
UK for reading a draft of this manuscript.

Fig. 6. Percentage of identifiable fingerprints from the simulated fire experiments, sorted by fingerprint enhancement method.

Please cite this article as: S.J. Gardner, et al., An investigation into effective methodologies for latent fingerprint enhancement on items recovered
from fire, Sci. Justice (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2016.02.003
6 S.J. Gardner et al. / Science and Justice xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
References
[1] Australian Institute of Criminology, The changing meaning of arson in Australia, FIRE
Arson Bulletin, 57, 2009.
[2] S. Bleay, G. Bradshaw, J. Moore, Fingerprint development and imaging newsletter:
special edition, 26, Home Office Scientific Development Branch — Investigation, En-
forcement and Protection Sector, 2006 1–32.
[3] S. Bleay, V. Sears, H. Bandley, A. Gibson, V. Bowman, R. Downham, L. Fitzgerald, T.
Ciuksza, J. Ramadani, C. Selway, Fingerprint Source Book, Home Office Centre for Ap-
plied Science and Technology, 2012 61.
[4] G. Bradshaw, S. Bleay, J. Deans, N.N. Daeid, Recover of fingerprints from arson
scenes: part 1 — latent fingerprints, J. Forensic Identif. 51 (1) (2008) 54–82.
[5] J. Deans, Recovery of fingerprints from fire scenes and associated evidence, Sci. Jus-
tice 46 (3) (2006) 153–168.
[6] A.J. Dominick, N.N. Daeid, S.M. Bleay, V. Sears, The recoverability of fingerprints on
paper exposed to elevated temperatures — part 1: comparison of enhancement
techniques, J. Forensic Identif. 59 (3) (2009) 325–339.
Please cite this article as: S.J. Gardner, et al., An investigation into effective methodologies for latent fingerprint enhancement on items recovered
from fire, Sci. Justice (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2016.02.003
[7] A.J. Dominick, Daeid N. Nic, S.M. Bleay, The recoverability of fingerprints on nonpo-
rous surfaces exposed to elevated temperatures, J. Forensic Identif. 61 (5) (2011)
520–536.
[8] S.F. Francis, A Personal Communication, Queensland Police Forensic Services,
Coomera, QLD, Australia, 2012.
[9] G. Paoli, S. Lewis, E. Schuette, L. Lewis, R. Connatser, T. Farkas, Photo and thermal
degradation studies of select eccrine fingerprint constituents, J. Forensic Sci. 55 (4)
(2010) 962–969.
[10] A. Richmond-Aylor, S. Bell, P. Callery, K. Morris, Thermal degradation analysis of
amino acids in fingerprint residue by pyrolysis GC–MC to develop new latent finger-
print developing reagents, J. Forensic Sci. 52 (2) (2007) 380–382, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1556–4029.2007.00384.x.
[11] K. Stow, J. McGurry, The recovery of finger marks from soot-covered glass fire de-
bris, Sci. Justice 46 (1) (2006) 3–14.
[12] World Meteorological Organization: Global weather & climate extremes. Archived
from the original on 13 March 2015 at https://www.wmo.int/pages/index_en.html.